Please log in

Register now for free

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

A valid e-mail address. All e-mails from the system will be sent to this address. The e-mail address is not made public and will only be used if you wish to receive a new password or wish to receive certain news or notifications by e-mail.

A journal stakes its reputation on the quality of the papers that it publishes, but I can imagine that it can be nearly impossible to check the findings of a given submission. And the sheer number of article submissions must make peer review somewhat daunting. How do you organise the reviews? Who does them? Under what conditions?

In the humanities, much can be checked simply by following the paper trail of references and notes (but even that is time-consuming). For the sciences, reviewing a paper could be next to impossible: does any journal have the technical resources and manpower to double-check every finding?

The underlying problem is one of trust: errors will occur, and they must be corrected. That will require that space must always be allowed for them to happen and for subsequent corrections to appear. We can learn as much from our mistakes as from our assertions – provided we demand honesty over perfection.